Attachment 2 - Jan. 25, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum and Exhibits 16-18PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Community Development Department Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/25/2017
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-023, SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION M-16-002, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-16-003.
PROJECT LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: DOUG RICH, VALLEY OAK PARTNERS. PROPERTY OWNER:
SOUTH BEACH PARTNERS LLC AND CUMULUS CAPITAL HOLIDINGS LLC.
REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES, REMOVE A SECOND UNIT, REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED
TREES, AND MERGE FOUR LOTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING A
NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BELOW GRADE AND AT GRADE
PARKING. APNS 529-11-013, -038, -039, AND -040.
DEEMED COMPLETE: JANUARY 5, 2017
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: JULY 5, 2017
REMARKS:
Exhibit 16 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2017 and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 24, 2017.
The applicant has provided a rendering of the building to illustrate the proposed height,
setback, and articulation along Winchester Boulevard (Exhibit 17).
Additionally, the Parks and Public Works Department has provided a project information sheet
for the project (Exhibit 18).
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Winchester 15860-15894 ADD.docx 1/24/2017 4:34 PM
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1.Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previously received with January 25, 2017 Staff Report:
2.Location Map
3.Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
4.Recommended Conditions of Approval (21 pages)
5.Letter of Justification/Project Description (three pages), received March 3, 2016
6.Neighborhood Meeting Outcome and Attendees (two pages), received September 13, 2016
7.Consulting Arborist’s First Report (46 pages), dated February 12, 2016
8.Consulting Arborist’s Second Report (seven pages), dated June 10, 2016
9.Consulting Arborist’s Addendum (two pages), dated July 22, 2016
10.Consulting Architect’s Report (three pages), received May 5, 2016
11.January 13, 2016 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes (two
pages)
12.Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (eight
pages)
13.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated January 5, 2017
14.Public Comment (seven pages)
15.Development Plans (29 pages), received January 5, 2017
Received with this Addendum Report:
16.Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
17.Additional information provided by the application, received January 24, 2017 (two pages)
18.Project information sheet provided by the Parks and Public Works Department, received
January 24, 2015 (four pages).
Distribution:
Doug Rich, Valley Oak Partners, 734 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126
South Beach Partners LLC and Cumulus Capital Holdings LLC, 125 South Market Street, Suite
1250, San Jose, CA 95113
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com>
Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:59 PM
Jocelyn Puga
Joel Paulson
Comments on 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project
Jocelyn and the Town Of Los Gatos Planning Commission,
I am writing with regards to the proposed office building at 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd . Our
family lives at 708 Winchester Blvd in the University Oaks condominium complex which is the immed iate
neighboring southern property to the project. I am also the president of the University Oaks HOA Board which
includes ten total units across five shared buildings. I speak on behalf of only myself and not our association in
this letter.
Our unit is the closest unit to the property and most impacted due to our units being only separated . from the
property line by a driveway and sound wall. Our windows are 20 feet from the property line of the proposed
project.
Various owners in the University Oaks have been actively involved in discussions with developer as
represented by Doug Rich . We attended a meeting at the Los Gatos Lodge on September 12th where we first
heard about the plan. At that meeting we expressed many of the concerns In this letter. We had an additional
follow-up with Doug focused on the impact to our properties on December 9th. We have had additional
communication via email with Doug. I was in attendance at each of these meetings and was on copy for all
emails. I am appreciative of the time Doug has spent listening to our concerns and working on solutions for
some, but not all, of our concerns. Doug has provided us with additional documents and plans that are not
currently in the application documents, as far as I know. I will send them as attachments to this email. I would
want all of the changes documented In this documents to be part of the considered plan.
Size
The size of the office is massive in comparison to any other office complexes along Winchester south of Lark
Avenue. Of the current offices along this corridor, the next largest would be the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
office. It should be noted that parking alone for this project would be twice the size of this next largest office. It
is also worth noting that almost all other offices on Winchester in th!$ area are single story and much more
blended with the local look and feel.
Aliowing this size of office complex for this project will likely set precedent that this is what look and feel we
want along the Winchester entrance to Los Gatos. It is very likely that other recently vacated and un-leased
properties (Green Thumb for example) immediately to the North would consider similar projects bringing an
office look and feel to our town. It Is also worth noting that residential has abandoned (converting to
businesses) neighboring properties with the largest existing office building (the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
office) and we'd expect that trend to continue as larger office complexes are built.
The size is most noticeable from our vantage point. The building is truly massive as compared to our
home. The maximum height of 35 foot is "hidden· to some extent from the front of the property due to the
slope of the property being smaller on Winchester and larger towards the back of the property. Unfortunately
given the slope of both the property and our neighboring property the full extent of the 35 foot is clearly visible
to us . In fact , from our bedrooms our view of trees and the sky will mostly be replaced (80%) with a view of an
office building wall and parking lots. This is due to the fact that the property is a parking garage at our at
ground level plus two more stories on top. Also be aware that all existing trees between us and the building
EXHIBIT 1 6
1
are to be removed which further makes the view problematic. Please see the attached pictures for how this
will change our existing views (a rough rendering of a before and after view from one of our bedrooms).
The town should consider if this office is what is needed now. It should be noted that there are three office
complexes within two blocks of the site that are vacant or have leasing available. Notably, the Twin Parks
office complex right around the corner has been available for a very long time. Also, as noted during CDAC
review the design is modern as compared to surrounding properties. While design has many aspects of
opinion, it should be obvious that many buildings of this high tech feel together will start to redefine the
acceptable eclectic town feel of Los Gatos.
We haven't been able to discuss the size concern deeply with the developer as it wasn't clear until the story
poles were added. Also, with the current trees (which will be removed) it was very hard to see the building
outlines.
Traffic Safety
Visibility for "at grade" (actually above existing grade) parking that enters and exits on Winchester is
unacceptable for left turns. Our current driveway is only a few feet from where the new driveway will be
located and we know from experience that visibility is poor. When cars are parked on Winchester there is
severely limited left tum visibility. We have learned to:
1. Look, before getting completely to the end of our driveway, behind parked cars for cars at the Blossom
Hill intersection
2 . Time when cars are leaving the Blossom Hill intersection to know when to pull out
3. Pull out very slowly checking for any cars or motorcycles that might have accelerated or entered
Winchester from Bruce Avenue
This is also somewhat problematic for making right turns. During rush hour, I always tum right and avoid the
dangerous left turn. It is unlikely that every car using the new office will be this careful exiting the driveway. If
this driveway is allowed to make left turns, I expect there will be accidents.
Also, given the proximity to the schools, drivers need to be extra careful of kids on bicycles and walking. Given
the proximity to Dave's Elementary there are many walkers in the morning that would be walking past the
property. Also, there are Fisher Middle bicycle riders that cross the front of the property at a higher speed.
It should be noted that the smaller Palo Alto Medical Foundation office has similar challenges, but ls helped by
a light at their driveway. Neither the at grade parking nor the partially underground parking garage will have
any assistance to help cars safely turn onto Winchester.
Exhaust and Noise
The plans currently call for a fan to circulate air in the "underground" parking. This fan is currently planned to
be as close as possible to the front door and windows of our neighbor and within a very short distance of our
unit. We have concerns on the C02 emissions from all underground cars being pointed directly at our
property. We are also concerned about the mechanical noise generated by such a fan. The developer has
provided us with plan updated that show they could move the fan underground and slightly further away from
our property line. I will attach those additional plans to this email. While moving this fan three parking spots
further away is an improvement, it is very concerning to have such concentrated emissions so close to
residences.
11 At grade" parking Issues
The current plan calls for forty parking spots at grade. This at grade if the height of Winchester with a slope
that doesn't match the current slope of the property. This results in parking that is higher than our directly
2
neighboring driveway and at level with our windows. Head-in parking on the southern property line is aligned
perfectly to point at our home. We have both safety and lighting concerns with this.
We have concerns that with only a curb and fence that cars could crash down onto our property from this
elevated height. In discussions with the developer, they have added trees alo ng our property line, but it isn't
clear that there is enough to guarantee that a car couldn't crash down onto our driveway which is a place
where our children play. We had this concern confirmed by neighbors that have had this happen to their
property twice in the recent years, both times mitigated by building a stronger fence. It would be better to solve
this problem in planning than take the risk to solve it after an incident.
As for lighting, the plans call for screening to reduce the Impact of headlights that are, due to the height, are
aligned with our picture windows in our bedrooms. If this office building is used at later hours, we believe that
headlights will now be shining into our bed rooms.
Safety a n d secu rity
It is unclear if the property will be monitored 2417 and how parking will or will not be restricted. Our residents
toured the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and found that they have signs saying that towing is enforced and that
garage opening is locked on off hours. Will that be the case for this property?
Given our proximity to Vasona Park it is very likely on nice weekends for people to park at this office complex
and walk through our property to get to the park as there is no direct access to the park from the property.
Also, when we toured the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, we found evidence of homeless ·residents by the stairs
used as secondary access to their garage. The planned building has a stairs planned five feet from our
property line with open space between the elevated property and our sound wall. Will these stairs be secured
on off hours? We are concerned about this from a safety and security perspective to avoid the problems that
seem to be already evident at the other office building.
Alternatives
I would like to propose some alternatives for the planning commission to consider.
Given the property is zoned to support offices, I will constrain my recommendations to items that could make
the planned project better. I would personally prefer to see housing given California's needs, but that is
beyond the scope of these recommendations .
I would prefer to see a building that wasn't at the maximum size given how close our homes are to the
property. The height makes the current plan loom over residential. If that means a one story property closer to
our property, I'd want to make sure the height and angles are less impactful on our site lines. At a minimum I'd
like to ensure we keep at least 50% of our current unobstructed or tree filled views . I would propose reducing
both the size of the building and parking to be closer to other existing office complexes that neighbor
residential .
If the current size of the building was kept relatively the same, I would request that the 13 spaces that face our
property be removed or relocated. This change would fix many of the concerns we currently have including :
1. Avoids safety issue of cars falling onto our property by providing a reasonable buffer before the end of
the property
2. Removes concern of headlights pointed directly at our bedroom windows
3. Lessens the size vantage point issue especially if trees are blanked in the space vacated by these
parking spots. Any trees at this· elevated level would do. a better job of blocking the vantage point of the
remaining parking and building height.
3
It should be noted that similar spaces at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office are not pointed to the edges of
the property and are instead perpendicular to the property line. A very small request therefore could be to
change the orientation of these 13 spaces to perpendicular (reducing the number of spaces by less than 13).
Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com)
4
0 ~z ........ ~Q UJ -(!) SQ ~ 0 ~ (/) ~ w ---00
0 N
.:.i c:>
u.Z
~ z: Oz
<( ~~ ~
t-Q..
January 21, 2017
Jocelyn Puga
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA
Shauna and Bob Garzee
704 Winchester Blvd
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: 15860, 1S880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard. Architecture and Site Application S-16-023
Dear Jocelyn and Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission,
I am writing with regards to the proposed office building at 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd.
My husband and I live at 704 Winchester Blvd in the University Oaks condominium complex which Is the
immediate neighboring southern property to the project.
I along with other homeowners of University Oaks have been in discussion with the developer via their
representative, Doug Rich. We liave expressed the concerns about this project that I will outline in this
letter. We met in person With Doug in December regarding impacts to our homes and the developer has
worked on some of the Issues we ra lsed but not all. I do appreciate the time that Doug has spent with us
but in no way, have all of my deep concerns been addressed.
Our concerns are in the areas of size, design, traffic, parking, exhaust and safety.
Size
The size of the proposed office is massive in comparison to other office complexes along Winchester
south of Lark Avenue. The next largest complex in the vicinity is the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office
which is significantly smaller. The proposed complex will loom over us due to the complex being at the
maximum height of 35 feet and the way they proposed to develop the property with an underground
garage and then two full stories on top of the garage. We will basically have a huge 35-foot wall of
building along the upper south side of our community. That along with the loss of many large oak trees·
will significantly alter views.
Design
The design of this complex is definitely not in keeping with the 'look and feel' of Los Gatos and does not
in any way blend into the neighborhood. While I realize that design esthetics are personal a very
contemporary building does not match anything along Winchester south of Lark. Allowing this size and
design will likely set precedent for what other redeveloped properties along Winchester will look like
forever changing a very charming area into something that does not blend with the local look and feel.
Traffic
This complex will add a significant amount of traffic to the immediate area . Turning onto Winchester
.from University Oaks driveways is currently difficult and all of us living here are very mindful of the
danger of making a left turn onto Winchester due to sight line and the speed at which motorist drive.
Additionally, this is a heavily travelled student route during the morning and afternoon. The proposed
development's driveway is within feet of our existing driveway and given the dangers out pulling out
onto Winchester the developer should be mitigating the chance of accidents by not allowing left turns
from the complex driveway.
Parking
The current development show s 40 parking spots at grade . However, it should be noted that at grade is
a misnomer from my perspect ive as the parking will be much higher than the current driveway on the
property and will be directly level with the windows of 706 and 708 Winchester. The parking on the
south side of the complex along the driveway has cars po inting directly at our complex generating both
lighting and safety concerns. Given the height difference I believe there w ill be car lig hts shini ng into our
neighbor's homes even with the metal screen proposed by the developer plus the opportunity for
people to see into the homes. The height difference also creates a danger with regards to cars crashing
through the barrier and down onto our property and driveway.
Exhaust
The developers plan call for a fan to exhaust or circulate air from the u nder ground parking and thi s fan is
located very close to the front door and windows of two residents . I have concerns about the possibly
toxic emissions from the underground parking being directed at our homes. Additionally, it isn 't clear
how mu ch noise these exhaust fans will make and if they will be running 24x7 creating a very unhealthy
and not very peaceful or enjoyable environment.
Safety
There are several elements of this development with raise safety concerns for us. First, there i s a
stairwell leading to/from the parking garage that is approximately 5 feet from to o ur property line with
an open space between the complex property and our wall -how does the developer plan to se cure this
stairwell? This is a concern as it is a spot that could attract unwanted and possible dangerous activity
during off hours. Second, how is the parking lot and the underground ga r age going t o be controlled?
Will the garage be secured at n ight and on the weekends so that we are not impacted by others using
the parki ng?
Suggested alternatives
Our preference would be to see much needed housing on this property but given the Commercial zoning
we understand this is not pos sible or likely. So, I request consideration for the following:
• Reduce the size of the development so that our residences are not faced with a looming wall by
either reducing the height to one story or reduci ng to less than 35 feet.
• Improve the buffering between University Oaks and the proposed complex by adding more and
taller plantings or trees to help reduce the impact of a looming wall.
• Restructure the parking such that there are not cars visible to and head l ights pointing towards
the homes in University Oaks.
• Con sider a design that is more in keeping w ith the look and feel of the immediate
ne ighborhood.
In closing we believe that it is in the best interest of the Town and the neighborhood to address these
concerns by reducing the scope of this complex into something that is In keeping with the look and feel
of Los Gatos.
Thank you ,
~~
Shauna and Bob Garzee
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jocelyn Paulson,
karen vincent <karenvincent@msn.com>
Sunday, January 22, 2017 2:40 PM
Jocelyn Puga; paulson@losgatosca.gov
karen vincent
15860 15880 15894 Winchester Blvd
DSCN2718JPG
I am a townhouse owner living at 711 University Avenue for the last 25+ years. I am adjacent to the planned
structure on Winchester Blvd .
I am very disappointed in reviewing the plans for the structure. I feel that the town needs to stop approvi ng
these large two story commercial buildi ngs which are dwarfing the one story homes in the community.
This planed monstrosity is just one more that ruins the character of our living environment. We do not need
more empty commercial buildings. We do not need more unsecure underground parking lots which are a
perfect environment for crime.
When I leave my condominium complex In the morning I yield to children on bikes going to Daves ave
school. I yield to the runners and walkers out for the morning exercise. Because this is MY community where
I live I always give extra ·time for those on pedals or foot to have a safe distance from my car pulling out of a
very busy Winchester Blvd. I fear for these children and others when there is a new office building with
people pulling In and out that are late for an appointment or trying to speed up when going in or out of the
structure to "beat" the traffic. ·
I do not mind modern buildings however this planned building looks "cheap and ugly". It looks like it bel.ongs
in a strip mall in Modesto.
It Is to h igh (almost 3 levels), blocking the greenery and mountai ns. It DOES have a significant impact on a
scenic vls1'l if you lived on this blockl I !
I suggest a one story c~mplex . If that is not financially feasible for the builder then they can go elsewhere.
I have concerns over the loss of more trees. When I look out my window I see green. I do not want to see an
ugly building. See enclosed attachment.
I would greatly appreciate your attention to this proposed project before It is too late and the damage Is done.
Sincerely,
Ka r en Vincent
1
Karen Vincent karenvincent@msn.com ·HOME DENTAL HYGIENE CARE 408 395-0402 FAX 408 395-3294
www.mobiledentalhygienecare.com "If you aren't part ofthe solution then you are part of the problem" The
materials in this message are private and may contain information that Is privileged and confidential,
Protected Health Information within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) and/or Medical Information within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
(CMIA). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
copying, forwarding, printing, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
information Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may be unlawful. If you have received this message by error, or have
reason to believe that you are not authorized to receive it, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for
return or destruction of these documents and delete this message. 11 1 value your business and I appreciate
your referrals.11
2
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Dear Jocelyn Puga,
Georgina Van. Horn <george_vh@msn.com>
Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:30 PM
Jocelyn Puga
Joel Paulson
Winchester Office Building Project
I am the owner of a townhouse closest to the proposed office building
on Winchester Blvd. I have lived here thirty years and appreciate living in
Los Gatos. I have several concerns with the plans for the proposed project.
My first concern is with the size of the building. It is huge compared to
the houses and other office buildings on Winchester. This boulevard is a
main entrance to our town and the many trees and low buildings help
to make the entrance attractive. Andrew Spyker, my neighbor, sent you
before and after pictures of the trees now and the wall after. The wall of the
building will block more of my sight because of the position of my unit.
I propose a lower smaller building and keeping many more trees that are
a treasure to the area. The design itself does not lend itself to the area.
Another major concern is the traffic that will be generated. It is already
difficult to turn right or left onto Winchester. With Daves Ave. School so close
children are walking and riding their bikes in the morning and afternoon. Many Fisher
Middle School kids also walk and ride their bikes on Winchester. In addition, cars
routinely drive 40-50 miles an hour in the 25 mile an hour zone along that part
of Winchester. My driveway is adjacent to the proposed driveway. This safety
Issue needs to be addressed.
The exhaust fan for the underground parking has been discussed several times.
How much ofthe fumes will be coming out just a few feet from our complex? And
the cars will add to this. The noise of the fan is also troubling.
I ask you to please take my concerns and those from others under serious
consideration. We have a unique little town ... l'm so fortunate to live
here ... we need to keep it livable and green!!
Sincerely,
Georgina Van Horn
706 Winchester Blvd.
408-395-6740
1
Jocelyn Puga
Subject RE: Proposed development at Winchester and Shelbourne
-Original Message--
From : Linda Lanzi [mailto:lindalanzl@gmail.comJ
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:01 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed development at Winchester and Shelbourne
Hello Dear councilmembers,
I live on Poppy Lane, between Dates and Bruce. So I am very aware of the proposed development on
University Avenue, around Shelbourne.
I a~ pleading with the council t«;> please reject the proposal as it stands today. There are too many beautiful
coast live oaks there that will be removed (because the construction alone will kill them) or build so close
around them that they may not s~rvive. These are protected trees and we must show that we value our
natural environment more than a man-made building. I read the entire arborist report and I am shocked this
is even being considered.
I beg you not to approve the development. There are other options.
Regards,
Linda Lanzi
15827 Poppy Lane
Monte Sereno, CA
1
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent
To:
Subjed:
Karen Kurtz <kurtzk@comcastnet>
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 U:Ol AM
Jocelyn Puga
Winchester/Shelburne project
I'm writing to say that I do not approve of the proposed project on Winchester & Shelburne .
1. When we are supposed to be providing more housing In the town, why would you allow residential parcels to
be changed into commercial? There is residential all around this area. It seems like it could be a place where
you could build & fulfill some of the affordable housing requirements. We do not need more commercial
buildings. You have other proposed office buildings in several other locations in town coming up. With a
recession being predicted in the next couple of years what are we going to do with all the empty office & retail
buildings. Take into consideration all the projects coming up before you when you are considering this project.
2. I also think that the proposed design is too contemporary for our historic town. It looks like all the other
recently built commercial buildings in town and neighboring towns. We are losing our unique historic &
charming community. It's such a shame & I'm so sad about that. I realize change happens & life moves forward
but I believe we can do a better job of preserving the look & feel of our unique community & still move
forward. That is why I chose this community to live in 40 years ago. Though beautiful inside, even our library is
much too contemporary for our historic town.
3 . Then there is the issue with the number of trees being requested to be cut down. And the building heights hide
the mountain views.
4. Please do not let this project go through as planned. Protect our community from more office/commercial &
contemporary design~d buildings.
Thank you,
kill re~ Kurtz
1.07 'E>YDCl o!WCl lj
1
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Categories:
Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com>
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:33 AM
Jocelyn Puga
Joel Paulson
Addendum to my initial comments on 15860, 15880 and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project
SouthernElevationAtGradePar1cing.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Red Category
This is in addition to the email I sent on 1/21. I wanted to provide additional research on the issue with the
current "at grade" parking.
Please see the attached PDF and referenced page numbers.
I believe the current plans are misleading on the height of the building as it relates to "at grade" parking. You
can see on page 1 how it shows at grade parking level with surrounding property. However, on page 2, you can
see how it is 4' above grade. Also, in the documentation provided to me by Doug Rich (page 3), it shows the
elevation ~ifferences at up to 4'.
Also, the setbacks are the minimum for this structure at 10' (with a stairway only at 5'). This allows for a stair
way, a exhaust vent, and 13 parking spaces to be located very close to the residential border. You can see this
on page 4. The plans sometimes refer to a 78' setback which is the distance from our elevation to the
building. Our setback is also impacted by the far closed 5' and 10' mentioned earlier.
On page 5 you can see how close this is to our residences. Our residences are not set back deeply on our
property and this has not been an issue due to curreni residential use of the property. Also, the fact that our
parking has always been at grade on both sides has meant that we had sufficient screens and there was no issue
of cars falling onto neighboring properties.
To help consider alternatives, i decided to compare similar situations around the area.
On page 6, you can see how the parking at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is different. Specifically, they re-
oriented the parking spaces at the top of the hill to be perpendicular to the neighboring property. I believe they
did this to avoid the head in parking problems I mentioned in my previous email (safety and headlight
concerns). Also, please note the large wall that was constructed to block cars and headlights on the bottom half
of the hill. Finally note this parking is truly "at grade" compared to the neighboring property.
In my email, I mentioned a safety concern with cars falling off the elevated property onto our property. In
discussions with our neighbors we were made aware of this exact problem across the street at the Ear, Nose and
Throat office. You can see on page 7 how there, after an accident, had to construct a major metal blocking wall
in addition to screening shrubbery. I would prefer if we avoided this situation in design vs. the unknown of
what could happen in an accident.
I was also made aware of another similar office and residential border with elevation differences. This border is
between the house that border the Panera and Office Depot shopping plaza and the parking. On page 8, you
will see how in this case the border is much deq)er than 10 feet, contains substantial old growth trees, and is
1
separated by a concrete block wall. With all of these additions, safety, lighting and screening are handled far
better than the Winchester project.
I ask the planning commission to consider the Policy LU-6.3. I believe there is more that can be done now in
design to protect our existing residential areas from this proposed adjacent nonresidential use. The safety issue
should be mitigated by a) dropping the height of parking to be at grade level b) providing a similar buffer as has
been done on other properties developed in Los Gatos and c) removal of head in parking that is directed at
current windows of residences.
Thank you for your time!
Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com)
2
~------.~ L. \. -·. ~., ..
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent
To:
Cc
Subject:
Suzanne Rollin <sfrollin@gmail.com>
Tuesday, Janua:y 24, 2017 10:59 AM
Joel Paulson; Jocelyn Puga
Andrew Spyker
15860, 15880 and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flagged Flag Status:
Categories: Red Category
Dear Director Pauson and Assistant Planner Puga:
I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding the Applicant's project on 15860, 15880 and 15894
Winchester Blvd. I have been a resident of the adjacent townhouse condominium complex, University Oaks, at
715 University Avenue since 1997 and have very much enjoyed the quiet and serene neighborhood.
My concerns are as follows:
• Building Size:
o The building is is inconsistent with all other office sizes on Winchester and will to set precedent
for future redevelopment further north.
o The building will be a looming structure due to the slope of the land and position of the parking
garage, effectively giving it the profile of a three story structure, which blocks 80 % to 100% of
the view of the sky and trees for at least two University Oaks Units .
• , Traffic Safety
o Has the traffic study taken into account the actual speed at which traffic flows on Winchester
Blvd? It is often faster than 25 mph.
o The very unsafe plans for allowing left turns from their Winchester entrance. No left tum exits
should be allowed.
• Building Height
u At grade parking is not at grade with existing grade. It is elevated a few feet above current
grade by the time the parking is at our units
o Concern of cars crashing down through our wall onto our driveway
o Concern of car headlights facing our buildings
• Screening/Fence between the Project and University Oaks
o Suggest that the screening be made more robust, such that is is both strong and aesthetically
pleasing.
o Suggest that extensive greenery be planted on the Project's fence as well as on the side of
University Oaks in order to help conceal the industrial nature of the fence from the existing
residential homes.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Suzanne F. Rollin
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
January 24, 2017
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
17509 Via Sereno
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
408.655.0400
bryan.mekechuk@comcast.net
Re: 15860. 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
For ADDENDUM
We are providi ng additional information to our letter dated January 19, 2017. In doing so, we reiterate
the following:
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and
sustainable development that.fits with Los Gatos. We do admire the style of the building.
To summarize this letter, we believe that the Planning Commission should CONTINUE the applications to
a later date so the applicant can:
1. Provide information as requested (e.g., additional cross sections and elevations) and answer
questions the applicant is unable to answer during the meeting.
2. Meet with interested members of the community and present information to them and receive
their feedback (i.e., additional community outreach).
3. Update the Transportation Impact Analysis to include traffic flows to/from Daves Avenue
Elementary School via Bruce Avenue.
If the Planning Commission must make a decision on January 25 then we ask that the Planning
Commission DENY the applications.
Increase Community Outreach
Unfortunately, as with the North 40, the Planning Commission (and Council) probably recognize now
that the public really doesn't get involved until story poles are put in place. Until then, many members
of the community are reticent to review the plans In detail and focus on the proposed development.
The only outreach in the community for this project was a meeting held on September 12, 2016. Two
signs were erected when the story poles went up in December 2016, which is when the community
really became aware ofthe project.
We are disappointed with the limited community outreach associated with this application. It was
misleading to have the applicant's structural engineer at the meeting on September 12, 2016 and then
see the applicant imply this person attended.as a member of the community. Regardless of the Intent,
the financial interest should be disclosed to be transparent to staff and the Planning Commission.
January 24, 2017 Page3
Although the Town of Los Gatos specifically requested that the impact on Daves Avenue be considered
in the transportation impact analysis, the Intent was probably to understand the Impact on drop-off and
pick-up at Daves Avenue Elementary School. The report included the following:
Project Impacts on Daves Avenue during School Peak Hours
Daves Avmue Elementary School ii located 11ppr01C:imat81y 2,000 fwtwest of the project lite. H. the
request of the Town, a qualitative discu11slon of project impacts on Daves Avenue cl.iring peak morning
drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods is provided.
Daves Avenue Elementary School currently begins classes at 8:15 AM for all grades and ends at
appre»cimately 2:30 PM for 1111 grades on all weekdays except Wednesday, when students end dasses at
appre»cimately 12:15 PM. Hexagon observed trafic operations on DaYBS Avenue during the peak school
morning droi>off and alemoon pick-up hours. As ciscusud in Chapter 2, only minor congestion issues
were observed, and the congestion lasted a period of apprQlCimately twenty to thirty minutes. During th•
school morning drop-off peak period, the proposed project is axpactad to generate three trips within an
hour on eastbound Daves Avenue . During the school PM pick-up hours, oflice land uses typically
generate little traffic, and the project is net assumed to generate any traffic on eastbound Daves Avenue.
Overall, during beth the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up school peak periods, the proposed
prajed is not expected to add a noticeable amount oftramc to eas1b~und Daves Avenue, which
experiences minor congestion for the peak twenty to thirty minutes of 'SChool activity.
During both the morning ctop-off and aftern0on pick-up !)ours at Daves Avenue Elemem.y School,
Hexagon observed that the majority of the drop-off and pick-up operations oiccurred on-site. Only a few
parents dropped-off or picked-up their children whil~ parfced along Daves Avenue Overw.11, sludants are
being dropped-off and picked-up in a safe manner. B~ause the pr~ec:t is expected to add only three trips
during the morning peak hour and no traffic during the a~moon school peak hour onto Daves Avenue, it
is not exp.cted that the proposed project would significantly affect the current drop-off and pick-up
patterns 1111d affect student safety. ·
The map below shows the streets Jn the vicinity; many drivers use Bruce Avenue when dropping off and
picking up students at Daves Avenue Elementary School:
I r i
I .>Yildc
i '
January 24, 2017 Page4
Failing to identify and analyze the traffic flows into and out of Bruce Avenue at Winchester damage the
credibility of the analysis and conclusions of the entire report. Anyone familiar with the area
understands the traffic routes surrounding drop-off (AM) and pick-up t i mes (PM).
In addition, other student activities after school generate PM traffic by parents, teachers and staff, and
others. Further, it is difficult to establish traffic patterns related to Daves Avenue Elementary School
with only one data point (March 2016).
Restrict Entrance/Exit to At Grade Parking from Winchester Boulevard
The transportation impact analysis reviewed the Winchester entrance/exit to the at grade parking and
states, "Sight d istance requ i rements vary dependi ng on the roadway speeds. The speed limit on
Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way is 25 mph." Very few vehicles follow the posted speed limit
on Winchester Boulevard. If actual vehicle speeds were only 25 mph then the recommendati ons
regard i ng the entrance/exit could be plausible -in r eality, vehicles are generally accelerating after the
Blossom Hill/North Santa Cruz Intersection and are go ing more than 30 mph where the entrance/exit
wou Id be located.
Fortunately, since there is a vehicle speed indicator for Northbound traffic on Winchester Bouleva rd, it
would be easy to sample vehicle speeds to see-how fast vehicles are actually going.
Allowing vehicles to turn left into or turn left out of the at-g r ade parking will be dangerous and an
ac cident will occur. Prohibiting such left turns should be a condition of any proposed development.
In 2016. Traffic Flows are Dynamic, based on Smart Phone Apps
The data sources used by the traffic consultants and their methodology and analysis softwa re
completely Ignores the increasi ng use of smart phone apps, including Waze, Google Maps and Apple
Maps. These apps have changed the dynamic of traffic flows by moving traffic to alternative routes
quickly when arteries are delayed, congested or blocked. These new technologies, which are
increasingly available, affordable and functional, have been recognized by California lawmakers in
establish ing new laws regard i ng the use while drivi ng, Unfortunately, the transportation analys is
industry has failed to include the impact of these new technologies In the ir analyses. Hexagon (the
traffic consulting firm) should have included a proviso and warning in their report stating that the use of
smart phone apps has not been considered in their analysis or conclusions, which may cause materia l
errors .
As the Planning Commission knows, minor delays in common traffic patterns are immediately
recogn ized by smart phone apps; drivers going through Los Gatos as well as drivers living in Los Gatos
rely on changi ng their route to save a small amount of t ime (because It takes little such effort). Smart
phone apps that re-route traffic can make dramatic changes in traffic volumes quickly.
Although a peer review of the transportation impact analysis may have been completed, since the traffic
study industry is based on traditional (obsolete) driver behavior, it is not su r prising that this
transportation impact analysis Is fatally flawed by not considering driving patterns and routes influenced
by smart phone apps.
Mitigated Negative Declaration -This Project Has a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
EMC Planning Group Inc. prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2016 for this
project. This Monterey-based organization concluded that under "1. Aesthetics a) Would the project
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?'' there would be Less Than Significant Impact. We
January 24, 2017 Pages
disagree with this conclusion as the analysis falls to consider pedestrian traffic and a significant amount
of other traffic on Winchester Boulevard, which now varies due to smart phone apps as described.
Statement of Reasons to Support Findings (page 2 of November 2016 report)
a. Hove a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The scenic vista toward the Santa Cruz Mountains is already partially obscured under existing conditions
and the proposed bulldings would only affect a brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester
Boulevard/ the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on o scenic vista.
Winchester runs North I South, not East I West·-let's turn to what is this conclusion based on.
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (page 171
a. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Pion EIR (general pion EIR) Identifies southward views of the
Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town . Due to the
heavily-wooded nature of the Town, these views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the
Town's major north-south running streets.
There are limited distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains looking southward from Winchester
Boulevard, but most currently available views of the mountains are perceivable when looking across
Winchester Boulevard away from the project site and thus would not be obstructed by project
development. Potential views of the ridge/Ines across the project site are mostly obstructed by existing
development or tree cover along Winchester Boulevard. The mountains ore briefly visible across the
project site at the corner of Shelburne Avenue. The existing house at that corner is about 18 feet tall with
a gable roof and is set bock from Winchester Boulevard by about 30 feet and Shelburne Avenue by about
40 feet. The proposed project building would be approximately 20 feet closer to Shelburne Avenue and
almost twice as tall. The proposed project would eliminate the brief view of the mountains from
westbound Winchester Boulevard. The project proposes to maintain several existing trees along
Winchester Boulevard and to plant new trees lining the street frontage where trees ore proposed for
removal. The tree planting would preserve comparable views to those existing on Winchester Boulevard.
The proposed project would slightly reduce views of the mountains, but would not result In significant
Impacts to any designated scenic vistas as identified In the general plan. Thus, Impacts would be less
than significant.
The authors of the report equate the views of trees that block the mountains (as stated above) as
identical to a two-story building blocking views of the mountains. We disagree strongly.
The authors should consider pedestrians walking on the West side of Winchester Boulevard . The Town
of Los Gatos promotes and motivates pedestrian activity-anything that make walking less pleasant,
such as blocking and eliminating views of the mountains, should be evaluated negatively.
For drivers, the authors believe there is only a brief view. Coming from Monterey, the authors may not
be familiar with traffic issues Southbound on Winchester Boulevard. The Planning Commission knows
that, increasingly, there are lengthy traffic delays Southbound on Winchester Boulevard, especially in
the summer with beach traffic and with smart phone aJ>pS promoting alternative routes including using
Winchester Boulevard to avoid congestion on Highway 17. By lowering the building height, anyone
caught in traffic when driving Southbound on Winchester will have (more than a fleeting) opportunity to
enjoy a view of the mountains (especially on beautiful sunny days that are prime beach traffic days).
~:·
~
r
It
I
I
"'~ ..
=~~~~
-~~_g><l~~DE
Requested
cross
section
#6
-t'I'
Requested
cross
section
#7
.
Cross section
provided by
application
(Section B)
Requested
cross
section
#8
This cross section does not appear to represent the
existing grade and, in addition, this cross section of
where the building is 6-1/2 ft doser to Winchester
~
~· ..
-
t
SECTION A
SCALE: 3132" • 1'~0" 0
The existing grade may be here
but is lower further South
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Jocelyn-
Doug Riql <doug@valleyoakpartners.com>
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:39 AM
Jocelyn Puga
Exhibit
170124_Height and Setback Exhibit.pdf
Please find attached an exhibit we would like to add to the commissioner's paeket. This information is in the
project applicati~-but not in one readily accessible co;mbined exhibit We believe it important to highlight the
height, setback and building articulation features that were incorporated into the building design. We will
discuss as part of om presentation as well.
Please confirm receipt. Thanks
Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda f San Jose, CA 95126
T 408.282.0995 IF 408.282.9797 f C 925.570.4593
doug@valleyoakoartners.com I htto:Uwww.vallevoakpartners.com
1
EXBJBIT 1 't
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
Engineering Division
January 25, 2017
ITEM: 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard; APN: 529-11-013, 038 and 040
Architecture & Site Application S-16-023, Subdivision Application M-16-002, and Negative
Declaration ND-16-003
PROPERTY OWNER: South Beach Partners, LLC/Cumulus Capital Holdings, LLC
APPLICANT: Valley Oak Partners – Doug Rich
Project Description: Requesting approval to demolish three existing single-family
residences, remove a second unit, remove large protected trees, and merge four lots for the
purposes of constructing a new two-story office building with below-grade and at-grade
parking.
Q: Where is the development project?
A: The location is at the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way.
Q: What is the proposed use?
A: The proposed development would construct 30,070 square feet of office building.
Q: Would the proposed development increase traffic?
A: The proposal would generate more vehicle trips than what currently occurs with the
existing three houses, resulting in an additional 303 weekday vehicle trips, including 38
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 46 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Q: Would the additional traffic trigger an environmental analysis and a traffic impact
analysis?
A: Yes. In accordance with Town’s Traffic Impact Policy, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is
required for any private development project that is expected to add 20 or more vehicle
trips in the AM or PM peak hours.
Q: How are AM and PM peak hours selected for any given intersection?
A: The traffic consultants conduct traffic counts between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between
4:00 PM and 6:00 PM weekdays when schools are in session for studied intersections. The
one-hour duration with the highest traffic concentration (based on traffic counts) during
both these morning and evening periods are the peak hours. These peak hour traffic times
are used for the traffic analysis.
Q: What would be the difference in the estimated traffic levels if the proposed development
was to provide medical offices as opposed to office/professional?
EXHIBIT 18
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
A: A proposed medical office of the same size would generate 32 additional AM peak hour
vehicle trips and 58 additional PM peak-hour vehicle trips than the proposed general office
use.
Q: What is LOS and how does it determine the impacts of project traffic on the Town?
A: Traffic engineering standards use LOS to determine project traffic impacts. LOS (Level of
Service) represents traffic intersection congestion by a letter scale that ranges from LOS A
to LOS F, with LOS A representing the least or no congestion. The Town’s General Plan does
not allow for developments to drop the LOS at an intersection by more than one level or
below LOS D without requiring the developer to mitigate or provide a “fix” for the increased
traffic delay. A project TIA analyzes LOS at impacted intersections and determines the
required mitigation and impact significance. The impacts are only considered significant if
the LOS drops more than one level or below a LOS D.
Q: What are the TIA’s findings of the LOS impact for the Winchester project?
A: The TIA concluded that all studied intersections would not drop more than one level or
below a LOS D. Therefore, the project would not create a significant impact on traffic.
Q: Did the TIA evaluate if the project access points would be adequate and safe?
A: There are two project driveways proposed for the development, one on Shelburne Way and
the other on Winchester Boulevard. The Shelburne driveway would serve 87 parking spaces
in an underground parking garage, while the Winchester driveway would serve a surface-
level parking lot containing 41 parking spaces. The TIA found the two driveways would
provide adequate access and can operate safely with red curbs prohibiting on-street parking
near the driveways to allow adequate site distances.
Q: What are the estimated traffic volumes for the two proposed driveways?
A: It is estimated that the Shelburne driveway will have 22 inbound and 4 outbound vehicle
trips during the AM peak hour and 2 inbound and 30 outbound vehicle trips during the PM
peak hour. In regards to the Winchester driveway, it is anticipated that 10 vehicles will
utilize this driveway during the AM peak hour and 14 vehicles during the PM peak hour.
Six of the vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours will turn left in from or left out
onto Winchester. This level is considered safe and a minimal increase of cars. The center
two-way left turn lane can be utilized to prepare for or complete a left turn movement
when it is safe to do so. This configuration is typical throughout the Town.
Q: Will there be a large volume of vehicles that turn left onto Shelburne Way to access the
underground parking garage?
A: No. It is anticipated that 5 vehicles will utilize this traffic movement during the AM peak
hour. Similarly, it is anticipated that 6 vehicles will turn left onto southbound Winchester
Boulevard from westbound Shelburne Way during the PM peak hour.
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Q: What can be done to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the project?
A: Even though the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts, a TDM
(Transportation Demand Management) plan would be required for the development. The
TDM plan would include a list of measures for reducing single-occupant vehicle trips and
encourage alternative transportation modes such as riding bicycles, carpooling, and riding
transit.
Q: What measures will be implemented for promoting bicycle trips?
A: The project is proposing a secured bike storage room that can hold 36 bicycles within the
underground parking garage. In addition, the project would be required to install bicycle
racks near the visitor entrance.
Q: Would the proposed project construct any off-site improvements?
A: The following off-site improvements would be required (see Attachment #1):
•7-foot right-of-way dedication for Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage for
adding a bicycle lane for northbound Winchester.
•Construction of a detached sidewalk along the project frontage.
•Construction of a corner bulb-out at Shelburne Way and Winchester Boulevard, and
striping of a high-visibility crosswalk for crossing Shelburne at Winchester.
Q: It is possible to increase the setback from the Winchester Boulevard right-of-way, moving
the building more to the east?
A: From an engineering perspective, yes, this is possible; however there are other unintended
consequences in doing so. For example, pushing the building back will directly lead to the
narrowing of the rear bioretention area along the eastern property, requiring it to be
lengthened and forcing the removal of three additional trees. This may increase the
elevation difference between the surface-level parking lot elevation and the adjacent
existing grade to greater currently proposed.
Q: Is it possible for a vehicle to crash through the curb and fence of the surface-level parking
lot and into a neighboring property?
A: The developer has proposed curbing/wheel stops and fencing around the perimeter of the
parking lot to prevent this, which is typical for elevated parking levels.